Search results

The concept of “neutral money” has a long history in monetary theory and macroeconomics. Like a number of other macro concepts, its meaning has been subject to a variety of interpretations over the decades. I explore the way in which Hayek used this term in his monetary writings in the 1930s and argue that “neutrality” for Hayek was best understood as the idea that monetary institutions were ideal if money, and changes in its supply, did not independently affect the process of price formation and thereby create false signals leading to economic discoordination, and especially of the intertemporal variety. This view was rooted in his work on money and the trade cycle in the late 1920s and early 1930s and also bound up with his understanding of “equilibrium theory.” The importance of his concept of neutrality was that it served as a benchmark for judging the comparative effectiveness of different monetary regimes and policies. That use is still relevant today.

This paper analyzes the two main divergent interpretations of Federal Reserve monetary policy in the 1920s, the expansionary view described by Rothbard (2008a [1963]) and earlier “Austrian” writers, and the contractionary view most notably held by Friedman and Schwartz (1993 [1963]) and later monetary historians. This paper argues in line with the former that the Federal Reserve engaged in expansionary monetary policy during the 1920s, as opposed to the gold sterilization view of the latter. The main rationale for this argument is that the increase in the money supply was driven by the increase in the money multiplier and total bank reserves, both of which were caused primarily by Fed policy (i.e., a decrease in reserve requirements and an increase in controlled reserves, respectively). Showing that this expansion did in fact occur provides the first step in supporting an Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) interpretation of the 1920s, namely that the Federal Reserve created a credit fueled boom that led to the Great Depression, although this is not pursued in the paper.

We study a microfounded search model of exchange in the laboratory. Using a within-subjects design, we consider exchange behavior with and without an intrinsically worthless token object. While these tokens have no redemption value, like fiat money they may foster greater exchange and welfare via the coordinating role of having prices of goods in terms of tokens. We find that welfare is indeed improved by the presence of tokens provided that the economy starts out with a supply of such tokens. In economies that operate for some time without tokens, the later surprise introduction of tokens does not serve to improve welfare. We also explore the impact of announced changes in the economy-wide stock of tokens (fiat money) on prices. Consistent with the quantity theory of money, we find that increases in the stock of money (tokens) have no real effects and mainly result in proportionate changes to prices. However, the same finding does not hold for decreases in the stock of money.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify definitions in economics.

To apply the insights of Austrian economics to terms widely used in the profession.

The authors find that the Austrian approach brings clarification to communication.

The authors know of no other such attempt. Therefore this paper presumably has some originality.

Over one and half years have passed since the demonetization of Indian economy had occurred on November 8, 2016. The drastic step was initiated by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi with an intention to curb the “huge” circulation of illicit or “black” money of Indian economy by means of withdrawal of high value denominations of Rupees 500 and Rupees 1,000 from the supply of broad money (M3). This step helped to demonetize around 86 per cent value of total money supply leading to an unprecedented chaos in the economy and public life. The long delays in issuing fresh currency notes at the banks and ATMs further deteriorated the sudden economic crisis.

This research paper is aimed at exploring the proclaimed “efficacy” of demonetization policy as proposed by Reserve Bank of India by means of a mathematical approach and critically examines the effects of demonetization on the illicit money supply of Indian economy on the basis of macroeconomic theory.

From the mathematical model and related estimates, it may be easily deduced that the Indian policymakers deliberately hurled the masses in one of the gravest economic crises with a clear-cut intention of creating a political gimmick, when in reality, the proportion of illegitimate money supply was not even 1 per cent of total legitimate supply of money.

The analyses and findings related to this paper are based on mathematical modeling and logical interpretations. This paper is free of plagiarism as all the necessary sources and references are properly cited.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of selected macro-economic variables like real effective exchange rate (REER), GDP, inflation (INF), the volume of trade (TR) and money supply (M2) on-budget deficit (BD) in Bangladesh over the period of 1980–2018.

By using secondary data, the paper uses the Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) and Granger Causality test. Johansen’s cointegration test is used to examine the long-run relationship among the variables under study.

Johansen’s cointegration test result shows that there exists a positive long-run relationship of selected macroeconomic variables (real effective exchange rate, inflation, the volume of trade and money supply) with the budget deficit, whereas GDP has a negative one. The short-run results from the VECM show that GDP, inflation and money supply have a negative relationship with the budget deficit. The Granger Causality test results reveal unidirectional causal relationships running from BD to REER; TR to BD; M2 to BD; GDP to REER; M2 to REER; INF to GDP; GDP to TR; M2 to GDP and bidirectional causal relationship between GDP and BD; TR and REER; M2 and TR.

Bangladesh has been experiencing a budget deficit since 1972 due to a decline in sources of revenue. This study contributes to the empirical debate on the causal nexus between macroeconomic variables and budget deficits by employing VECM and Granger Causality approaches.

“New measures” to aid monetary control introduced by the Bank of England in August 1981 are assessed with reference to the monetary base and “flow of funds” models of banking behaviour. Both models are found to be deficient in analysing the supply of “broad” money. However, theories of the banking firm highlight some problems in controlling a broad monetary aggregate. The “new measures” are viewed as a cautious approach to achieve greater flexibility in short‐term interest rates and to minimise the scope for disintermediation and hence are an improvement on previous arrangements for monetary control.

During the first decades of the 20th century, German Reformer Silvio Gesell (1862‐1930) championed with a certain success the reforming wave of the epoch by complementing ingenious solutions to some of the most important economic issues of his time with theoretical insights that were as radical as they were penetrating. The purpose of this paper is to offer an introduction to such intuitions, whose validity had been recognized even by a few distinguished academics of the 1930s, but which, owing to the extreme complications that eventually mired German intellectual production in its quasi‐entirety before WWII, failed to preserve the deserved consideration, however slight, they had earned when first formulated. A reappraisal of Gesell's contributions, considering the importance of his main themes, may be worthwhile, all the more so as these deal with questions unsolved to this day.

The purpose of this paper is to expand understanding of the current global financial crisis in light of other large‐scale financial crises.

The phenomenon of large‐scale financial crisis has not been modeled well by neo‐classical general equilibrium approaches; the paper explores whether evolutionary and complex systems approaches might be more useful. Previous empirical work and current data are coalesced to identify fundamental drivers of the boom and bust phases of the current crisis.

Many features of financial crisis occur naturally in evolutionary and complex systems. The boom phase leading to this current crisis (early 1980s through 2006) and bust phase (2007‐) are associated with structural changes in institutions, technologies, monetary processes, i.e. changing “meso structures”. Increasingly, purely financial constructs and processes are dominant infrastructures within the global economy.

Rigorous analytical predictions of financial crisis variables are at present not possible using evolutionary and complex systems approaches; however, such systems can be fruitfully studied through simulation methods and certain types of econometric modeling.

Common patterns in large‐scale financial crises might be better anticipated and guarded against. Better money‐liquidity supply decisions on the part of official institutions might help prevent economy‐wide money‐liquidity crises from turning into systemic solvency crises.

Scholars, policymakers, and practitioners might appreciate the more comprehensive evolutionary and complex systems framework and see that it suggests a new political economy of financial crisis. Despite a huge scholarly literature (organized recently as first‐ second‐ and third‐generation models of financial crises) and a flurry of topical essays in recent months, systemic understanding has been lacking.